Now what?

'Guns in the hands of good people' - The York Daily Record

Kim du Toit

You're driving down the road minding your own business, when you suddenly see a Road Rage; two out-of-control guys react to a minor fender bender, and attack a car driven by a woman, another woman and an undetermined number of children in there with her.

The guy car rams the car with women, and block their escape. The guy driver, hostile and loud and abusive, threatens mayhem at the top of his voice.

You've followed them into the parking lot where they ended up. Your wife is in the car with you.
What do you do?

In the actual event, one man ends up dead ... the attacking man.

One man ends up in handcuffs ... the non-involved, defending man.

On June 28, 2008, Brian Fentiman shot and killed Doug Needs, who threatened a carload of female drives, Fentiman, and Fentiman's wife.

Fentiman was not a party to the original road-rage incident: he was a witness, and stopped to render what help he could to the two victim females (and their children) and, when Need threatened the Fentimans, he used his final defense ... a pistol, which he was legally licensed to carry.

This may be one of the most revealing and cogent tales in recent history of a man who just wants to defend victims of violent crime ... which threatens to degenerate.

(For a comparative example of Road Rage Gone Wrong, see "Minor Wreck turns into Deadly Trauma in Florida" ... an unrelated incident.)

Stumble It!

Home Invasion

MyFox Orlando | Cops Search For Home Invasion Suspects

Florida seems to be the World Epicenter for Home Invasions.

Continuing with our theme of "Home Invasion Week",

Investigators believe the same group of suspects is responsible for at least four home invasions in the area of the Orange County, Seminole County border.

Home Invasions are bad. These are people who would be burglars, but their intent is not to steal property, but to steal a (perhaps unjustified) sense of security from the lives of their victims.

If there was ever a better reason for allowing honest citizens to keep and bear firearms in defense of their home, family, person and property, I can't imagine what it would be.

The kind of human animal who would choose to enter an occupied home with the intent to assault and terrorize their victims is an aberration to society, and the only way to stop it is to stomp these animals out.

They're way beyond the pale, they deserve no protection from the civilization which the deny.

The only way to protect yourself and your family from these animals is to arm yourself.

Let your neighbor put up the "Gun Free Zone" signs. When you hear the screaming from next door ... call 911.

If they show up at your door?

Let your neighbors call 911 to collect the bodies, because you refuse to be a victim.

Stumble It!

Heller the Hero Strikes Again

Dick Heller Doubles Down


Geek with a .45 scores a double whammy on DC's duplicitous denial.

Mr. Heller has (for the second time in recorded history) applied to the District of Columbia for permission to register a handgun.

Read the whole thing.

Stumble It!

Counting our chickens

With the passage and enactment of a new Florida law which permits employees to keep firearms in their cars at their place of employment, the NRA-ILA proudly proclaimed (July 1, 2008):

Today, House Bill 503 by Representative Greg Evers and Senator Durell Peaden takes effect.

Officially, HB 503 is known as the "Preservation & Protection of the Right to Keep & Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008," even though elements of the business community continue to call it the “Guns at Work Law.”

This new law protects existing constitutional and statutory rights. Law-abiding gun owners can continue to have firearms in their private vehicles, for self-defense and other lawful purposes without fear of punitive actions against them by anti-gun businesses and employers.

Under the new law, any business or employer who violates the constitutional and statutory right of customers or employees to have firearms locked in their private vehicles can now be punished.

ALSO, under this new law, business owners will benefit from immunity from liability if guns stored in vehicles in the businesses parking lot are used to cause harm on the business property.

THE LAW APPLIES TO ALL BUSINESSES, ALL CUSTOMERS & EMPLOYEES.

The law covers ALL employers and businesses. The Legislature passed and Governor Crist signed it into law to protect the right of ALL law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

The law requires employees who park in their employer's parking lot to have a concealed weapons license in order to be exempt from a policy that prohibits employees from having guns -- IF THEIR EMPLOYER HAS SUCH A POLICY.

Customers and invitees are not required to have concealed weapons licenses in order to have firearms in their vehicles when they park their vehicles in business parking lots.

The legislation does not prohibit any employer from having a policy that bars employees from having guns on the employer's property. It merely exempts employees, who have a concealed weapons license, from the policy as it relates to having a gun locked in their private vehicle in the parking lot. Employees who do not have concealed weapons licenses are subject to an employer’s anti-gun, gun ban policy.

That sounds fairly definitive, doesn't it?

But no! Corporate America (those fine folks who run the businesses , and find themselves forced into a conflict between their corporate profits, Corporate Policy and The Law) are never short of lawyers who can finagle a way to circumvent any law, no matter how clearly it might seem to the average layman.

Unfortunately, one of Florida's largest employers, Disneyland, has decided that they are exempt from this law and they will continue with their long-standing published police of forbidding anyone from entering their property with a firearm in their car.

And they just might make it stick:

Disney cites language within Florida's newly enacted "Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008" that creates an exception for companies whose primary business is to manufacture, use, store or transport explosives regulated under federal law.

"I intended it to exempt places like defense plants, Air Force bases, things like that," said Peaden, who sponsored the bill in the Senate. "But not Disney. Not at all."

But on the same day that the House took its final vote on the gun bill, the exemption for explosives companies was revised so that it also includes "property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit" under federal law for such explosives.

Disney has such a permit, for the extensive fireworks used in its theme parks.

On (curiously) Independence Day, 2008, NRA-ILA reported that a security guard at DisneyLand has announced his intention to defy the corporate policy and bring his firearm on the 23 mile commute. "Disneyland is safe ..." Security Guard Edwin Stotolmayer stated, "... but Orlando is not."

Disney told Eyewitness News it respects Sotomayer's opinion, but safety is its top priority and employees who bring guns to work risk getting fired. Sotomayer has already hired an attorney.He is not the only one who is upset. The NRA and the State Attorney General have also received complaints.

[NOTE: Disneyland was not amused when Sotomayer's gambit was attempted on Friday ... on Independence Day. He did what he said he would do: he brought his gun to town. Big D-land did what it said it would do: they canned his ass suspended him.]

In a world where businesses are subject to litigious action in case of either an accident or a terrorist attack (see Virginia Tech), it is perhaps understandable that any corporate entity would be more concerned for their legal vulnerability than for the safety of their customers. (Disney probably would disagree with this evaluation, but the new law provides protection for corporate entities:

Again, from the NRA-ILA Alert:

ALSO, under this new law, business owners will benefit from immunity from liability if guns stored in vehicles in the businesses parking lot are used to cause harm on the business property.

What is driving Disney to defy the decision of SCOTUS?

Your guess is as good as mine, but one of the benefits of Life in America is that anyone, from private individual to Corporate Entity, may challenge laws and the interpretation of those laws.

I don't agree with the Disney position, and I don't like it. But I rejoice that I live in a nation which is based on Rule By Law, rather than Rule By Fiat.

(And no, I never envisioned a situation when I would link to Time, Inc. as a definitive reference. It could be worse: I might sometime find myself agreeing with, say, Sean Penn. But I doubt it.)

Stumble It!

Independence Day Celebration!

July 4, 2008.

On this, the anniversary of our 232nd year of Independence from being a colony of a smaller nation on another continent, it is entirely appropriate and fitting that we "make a joyful noise".

Schools are happy: there is no school today.

The President and the White House are happy:

Presidential Message, Independence Day 2008

I send greetings to all Americans on Independence Day.

More than two centuries ago, bold and courageous visionaries pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in signing the Declaration of Independence. Guided by ancient and eternal truths, our forefathers proclaimed to the world that liberty was the natural right of all mankind and in doing so began one of the greatest chapters in human history. On the Fourth of July, our country commemorates the great achievements of these heroes and reaffirms its unwavering confidence in the power of freedom.

It was the desire for freedom that inspired our Founding Fathers, and it is the belief in the universality of freedom that guides our Nation. On this occasion, we pay special tribute to the men and women of our Armed Forces, both past and present, who have answered freedom's call and defended the values that make America the greatest country on earth.

May God bless America.

GEORGE W. BUSH

And I'm happy.

I celebrated this day by exercising at least two of my Constitutional Rights, as modified and expanded by the Bill of Rights:

(1,) The First Amendment recognizes my right to say almost anything I want to say here, on this Internet Blog. We call it "Freedom of Speech", or more accurately in the current interpretation (which doesn't restrict it to verbal speech), "Freedom of Expression".

This blog is a small thing, but it represents my Voice.

The First Amendment (among other rights) represents my God Give Right to stand on a street corner and make a speech. This blog is an Electronic Street Corner, which translates in an entirely appropriate manner in accordance to the changing technical capacities of our society.

In 1776 we didn't have the Internet. We didn't have computers. Heck, with the isolated exceptions (such as Benjamin Franklins "Key on a Kite String" experimentation), we didn't even have electricity. It was there, but we didn't know much about it. Still our Constitution is so strong that it recognizes the right to Free Speech, no matter the milieu or the media.

That has not always been the case. Our First Amendment Rights have historically been attacked by the most unlikely sources; John Adams authorized the "Alien and Sedition Act of 1798"; in 1918, Congress authorized the Espionage Act of 1917 :

The Espionage Act of 1917 was amended by Congress the following year to not only target "those who interfered with the draft, but also those individuals who publicly criticized the government — including negative comments about the flag, military or Constitution.

Can we today criticize the flag, military or Constitution?

Yes, and we do it all the damn time.

This right is often interpreted variously, according to the times:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
(Voltaire, 1694-1778)

"I agree with what you say, but I would attack to the death your right to say it."
(Tom Stoppard, 1937 - )

For me, Voltaire seems sincere and in accordance to the First Amendment.
Stoppard seems flippant, sophomoric, unlettered and insincere. He also said:
It's not the voting that's democracy, it's the counting.

Well, there you have the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections all over again.

I have no use for politicians, or people who are insincere. But then, I repeat myself.
_________________________________________

(2.) The Second Amendment recognizes my right to "... Keep and Bear Arms", and in a way it also provides me with a special way to celebrate this Independence Day.

(NOTE: As I wrote, illegal firecrackers are going off all over Corvallis, and at the Trysting Tree Gold Club because the Benton County Fair Grounds has insufficient parking space for the expected viewers of the traditional Fireworks Displays which we have learned to expect on this momentous day.)


Earlier today, I participated in a USPSA Pistol Match, were each of us were 'allowed' to "Make A Joyous Sound" by shooting pistols of various makes and calibers, blasting holes in cardboard targets and knocking down steel targets, for no better reason that we could.

The photos of this event show sane, 'normal' people having a lot of fun, doing nothing more more condemnatory that shooting at targets.

A recent Huffington.Com post (H/T: Michael Bane Blog) suggests that "The Supreme Court now says every American has the right to kill people, subject only to certain situational constraints." Obviously, this person does not know what he is talking about. Also, he has no understanding of what he refers to as far as the Second Amendment is concerned.

Most important, he has no comprehension regarding the many reasons why people own firearms, particularly handguns.

We may own them to defend ourselves, our families, our neighbors and even people we don't personally know. That doesn't mean we own them for the express purpose of "... Kill[ing] People...", which he slyly expresses in the most negative terms possible.

We've got to get people looking at firearms ownership in a more realistic manner. This constant attack on honest citizens is misdirected. People who attack us as if we were a bunch of drugged-up gang-bangers or "Death Wish" avengers have been watching too many movies, and they have no connection with The Real America.

In the meantime, when I'm not writing about shooting, I'm on the range making loud noises just because it feels so good. It is The Sound of Freedom, because, you know ... we can do this.

Stumble It!

Kellerman Blinks!

Guns for Safety? Dream On, Scalia. - washingtonpost.com

Do you remember Dr. A.L. Kellerman's 1986 study, "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-releated Deaths in the Home" (Registration Required), published in the New England Journal of Medicine? In it, Dr. Kellerman stated categorically that you are "43 times more likely" to be injured or killed if there is a firearm in your home.

A couple of days ago the Washington Post published an article by Kellerman in which he states:

More than 20 years ago, I conducted a study of firearm-related deaths in homes in Seattle and surrounding King County, Washington. Over the study's seven-year interval, more than half of all fatal shootings in the county took place in the home where the firearm involved was kept. Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides. A subsequent study conducted in three U.S. cities found that guns kept in the home were 12 times more likely to be involved in the death or injury of a member of the household than in the killing or wounding of a bad guy in self-defense.

The original Washington study's results are not cited here. That's not surprising, in that the study has been repudiated for the past 20 years because of the demographic it represents, the phrasing of the questions, the definitions of the terms, and the way the results were interpreted.

A few randomly chosen criticism are available here, here, and here.

(For example, the study does not consider whether the gun in the home was an actual factor, as in whether the gun was used or was locked up in a closet. Also, the study was taken in a "high-crime" neighborhood, and the study did not consider incidents in which a gun was used to deter an attacker without injury to either party, or where only the attacker was wounded but not killed.)

Now Kellerman has changed his point-score, but apparently he has not changed his study methodology.

However, he has made an effort to refute criticisms by inventing his own unsupported argument:

In the real world, Scalia's scenario -- an armed assailant breaks into your home, and you shoot or scare away the bad guy with your handy handgun -- happens pretty infrequently. Statistically speaking, these rare success stories are dwarfed by tragedies.

We don't know where he got that impression. John R. Lott's impressive study, published in book form as "More Guns, Less Crime; Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws" (University of Chicago Press, 2000), specifically looked at the deterent effect of firearms ownership ... which question Kellerman 'studiously' avoided.

And more specifically, Dave Kopel (in a 2001 National Review Online article) presciently refuted that article:

Now, how about the self-defense homicides, which Kellermann and Reay found to be so rare? Well, the reason that they found such a low total was that they excluded many cases of lawful self-defense. Kellermann and Reay did not count in the self-defense total of any of the cases where a person who had shot an attacker was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, or cases where a conviction was reversed on appeal on grounds related to self-defense. Yet 40% of women who appeal their murder convictions have the conviction reversed on appeal. ("Fighting Back," Time, Jan. 18, 1993.)

Take that, East Coast Liberal Elitist Lying Anti-Gun Scholars!

(H/T Say Uncle, and Days Of Our Trailers, via Ninth Stage)

Stumble It!

Heller Fallout - The Shooting Wire

Once again, the inimitable Jim Shepherd puts his trigger-finger dead bang on the essentials of the situation.

Despite the SCOTUS ruling, at least Washington, DC (and probably, so far, Chicago and San Francisco) seem determined to skirt the Second Amendment because of the necessarily narrow definition cited in the decision.

As I said in "We Won - Sort Of", the lack of a full definition of the Bill of Rights will continue to haunt legal firearms owners for decades, and we're only now beginning to perceive the tip of the ice berg.

Shepherd, in case you didn't know, makes The Shooting Wire his forum for exquisite examinations of the issues experienced by Shooting Community. I've decided that he has deliberately chosen not to provide permalinks to his commentary, to encourage you to subscribe to the newsletter. You should go there and do so.

In the meantime, I will continue to quote his articles in almost-full content:

The legal landscape may appear changed since the Supreme Court's ruling that the Second Amendment does, indeed, cover an individual right to own firearms, but the political landscape seems determined to maintain the status quo. In other words, the politicians and organizations that hysterically decried the decision continue their ranting today.
Just in case there were any doubts about where they were ideologically concerning firearms, we offer these quotes from notable anti-gun politicians:

"President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future."
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

"While the Supreme Court has ruled, not unexpectedly, that individuals have a right to bear arms, the court clearly allows for reasonable regulations like the Brady law and the assault weapons ban. It is my hope and belief that the ruling will not change much in terms of how the states and the federal government are allowed to regulate guns."
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

"While it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe."
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

In other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same. It appears some politicians believe that they know better than the people, the courts and anyone else what is best for the United States. In their statements, it is obvious they are not going to follow the Supreme Court ruling because they believe it is wrong. In that respect, these Senators are worthy the same amount of respect accorded those politicians who stood firmly against desegregation and women's rights. Their constituencies, rather, comprise those liberal areas whose residents claim to be champions of civil rights.

Those same civil rights - and their alleged champions - don't appear so important if you're talking about law-abiding citizens who want the same right in Washington, D.C. (or Chicago) as anyone else in the United States.

And the anti-gun hysteria went even beyond my imagination this weekend as the Chicago Tribune called for a repeal of the Second Amendment. (*) In their editorial, the Tribune called the Second Amendment an "anachronism" that should be repealed. In its argument, the Tribune quoted the 1939 case, U.S. vs. Miller. In that ruling, the Tribune said the amendment was established as a "collective right" that applied only to service in some form of militia. The fact the majority of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court felt otherwise, apparently had no bearing on the Tribune. Neither, incidentally, did the fact that there was never a clear ruling on the Miller case. That 1939 case involved a pair of moonshiners charged with violating the National Firearms Act (NFA) by transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state lines. By the time the case had come before the Supreme Court, Miller had been killed and his co-defendant had made a plea bargain, so there were no claimants to continue the proceeding. Ultimately the Court reversed the claim that the NFA was in violation of the Second Amendment and remanded the case back to the lower courts. There, it, like Miller, expired. We're nowhere close to seeing, hearing or ending the arguing about this landmark decision. At this point, it is clear, however, that those questions Justice Scalia chose not to clarify in his majority opinion will quickly become front-burner issues with anti-gun groups.

(*) The Chicago Tribune article which Shepherd cites is referenced in Michael Bane's blog here; the direct link to the article is available here, and I recommend that you read as many of the (disparaging) comments as you have time for. It will help you to understand why the Trib eventually seemed to disown the article, and effectively relegated it to the "South 40".

Incidentally, the Comments frequently discuss the 1939 Miller decision, with varying degrees of accuracy. I have written about that case several times here, and my analysis doesn't precisely agree with either Shepherd's evaluation or that of most of the commenters.

I invite you to go here (and perhaps less authoritatively, but more contextually oriented here). Read the court documents, and decide for yourself the essential facts.

If anything, the Miller case served to obfuscate, rather than to clarify, United States Case Law regarding a legal and definitive interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Stumble It!

NPR and the Heller Decision

I did a lot of driving today, to and from the Area 1 match, and I spent most of that time listening to the car radio.

Wouldn't you know it; the only station that came in clear over the entire course of travel was National Public Radio (NPR).

There were a couple of 'panel discussion' venues presented, relating to Current Events. One subject which was never omitted was the Supreme Court's decision on Heller vs DC.

Invariably, and probably because the 'panels' were loaded with comedians (and at least one 'sex columnist'), the comments were at best dismissive of the value of the court decision vis a vis the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; at worst, they were deprecatory.

Also quoting from my imperfect memory, the NPR station quoted a (blogger or columnist ... I'm unable to find the internet reference ... does it exist?) to the effect that "Now that I can have a gun in the District of Columbia, I'll be sure to send a shoulder of Venison to Dick Cheney as soon as a deer attacks me on the Capital Mall". I'm certain that this quote is inaccurate in the details, but I am equally sure that the quote is true to the impression it tries to make.

That is, the only legitimate use for firearms is for hunting, and that use is not applicable to the Urban venue of the District of Columbia. The implication is that the entire question of Heller vs DC, and the SCOTUS decision that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is without practical value.

This is only acceptable if you accept the basic premise: that the Second Amendment only applies to the use of firearms for hunting, and has no applicability to self-defense, or the acknowledgment that the Second Amendment was originally acknowledged to provide the citizenry with the means to overthrow a tyrannical Federal Government.

Well, NPR represents a Kinder, Gentler Nation, and it is loath to consider that a Federal government might be inimical to the Rights of Man.

Essentially, during my several hours of listening to NPR (which I do not exercise as a general practice), I discovered that this Publically Funded venue was unable to find a spokesman who was willing to venture that the SCOTUS decision had some value to the average honest citizen, let alone to the besieged and beleaguered D.C. Resident.


Okay, you don't listen to NPR on a regular basis. Why should you care?

You should care, because this is typical of the entire Liberal/Socialist/Gun-Control though process.

Here is the reportage from a D.C. radio station (WTOP) website:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court may have struck down the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns, but that doesn't mean you can go out and buy one today.

D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles says D.C. will start issuing permits to own a gun in 21 days, once the Supreme Court hands their decision down to the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C.

"This is not open season with handguns," Nickles says. "We are going to strictly regulate the registration of handguns. There will be no authorization of automatic or semi-automatics."

[emphasis added

There will be no authorization of automatic or semi-automatics."

Note the attempt to equate "automatic" and "semi-automatic[s]" firearms here.

There we see a transparent attempt to confuse the public by listing "Automatic Weapons" (which are regulated by the 1934 National Firearms Act) with "Semi-Automatic weapons" ... they are not the same, but this statement is entirely misleading to the average uninformed reader.

To continue:

The city may also require that trigger locks be kept on guns, Nickles says. The law will restrict people who are mentally ill and who are criminals from owning guns.

One of the issues of Heller VS DC was that the District required firearms owners to store their pistols and rifles in a non-usable condition; either locked with a "triger lock", or disassembled. This is one of the points which Heller addressed, although SCOTUS did not specifically address the issue of 'handguns' being stored with trigger-locks ... because handguns were banned, the question was moot. Now, DC will make it an issue.l

As for the question of "people who are mentally ill and who are criminals ...", these people are already barred from possessing firearms by Federal law. The inclusion here is mer showmanship; smoke and mirrors; obfuscation; bullshit.

Nickles says he expects to allow gun stores to open in the District. There are currently two people who are licensed to sell guns in the District, but there are no gun stores.

Here's another way in which Municipalities may attempt to avoid Constitutional Law. The District of Columbia is in an unique position, because they are not a State and, arguably, they are not a City. However, they can pick whatever argument suits their purpose, which is to deny access to firearms to honest citizens (who are the only residents who don't have 'em!)

They can allow ownership of firearms, but they can deny applications to those who would sell firearms. And they can deny the importation of firearms from outside the municipality.

This is the same legislative "Double-Whammy" which they have previously used, , in that they (a) disallowed the ownership if unregistered firearms, and simultaneously (b) disallowed the registration of all firearms.

It worked for them then, and they are willing to bet that it will work for them again. It took 20 years for the Supreme Court to address their egregious Gun Laws; they're willing to bet that they can throw up enough smoke and mirrors to make SCOTUS weary of addressing all of their petty local laws.

I thing they're right.

I think that D.C., Chicago, NYC and all other governmental entitites can nickle=and=dime SCOTUS to death.

And I have absolutely no doubt whatever that this is the tactic which they will implement, until it doesn't work any more (if that ever happens).


Then they'll try something else equally petty, and do it again and again, and they will tie up the Supreme Court once again, until they wear down the Supremes because, after all, they have more important issues to consider.

The comments (relying on my imperfect memory) included:

"Back when the 2nd amendment was written, did they have concealable muskets?"

"Well, they had voluminous panteloons."

"I bet they didn't have a lot of quick-draws, did they? And you know, it took them over a minute to reload."

The implications here are clearly that the technological circumstances which prevailed in 1791 are not pertinent to today's technology. This is a heavily beaten path to the argument that the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate concealable handguns and semi-automatic weapons, so the Constitutional amendment should not apply to modern firearms.

D.C. doesn't get it. NPR doesn't get it. Well, NPR might be excused because their show is obviously 'entertainment', as is evidenced by a panel composed of Comedians and Sex Columnists.

The thing is, we're paying for NPR. It's the National Public Radio, for crying out loud. It's supported by our taxes. But it doesn't represent us. Instead, it represents snooty Liberal Elitists, Comedians and Sex Columnists.

No wonder Al Queda considers us a nation of Godless degenerates.

They probably listen to NPR every day, just to keep the troops filled with righteous indignation.

Stumble It!

We Won! Sort of (Part 2)

Yesterday I posted comments re: Heller v DC which were a dismal reflection of my own pessimistic attitude about the on-going contretemps between gun-rights v gun-control activists.

I stand behind every word I said.

Still, I'm aware that such dour commentary is disheartening, so I spent some time looking for a more positive response from reputable commentators.

Thanks to the Michael Bane Blog, I found this article in the REASON magazine website. The folks who write for this publication are not only excellent writers, they are much smarter than I am.

Here's the short article from Dave Kopel:

Dave Kopel: Heller is a tremendous victory for human rights and for libertarian ideals. Today’s majority opinion provides everything which the lawyers closely involved in the case, myself included, had hoped for. Of course I would have preferred a decision which went much further in declaring various types of gun control to be unconstitutional. But Rome was not built in a day, and neither is constitutional doctrine.

For most of our nation’s history, the U.S. Supreme Court did nothing to protect the First Amendment; it was not until the 1930s when a majority of the Court took the first steps towards protecting freedom of the press. It would have been preposterous to be disappointed that a Court in, say, 1936, would not declare a ban on flag-burning to be unconstitutional. It took decades for the Supreme Court to build a robust First Amendment doctrine strong enough to protect even the free speech rights of people as loathsome as flag-burners or American Nazis.

Likewise, the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was, for all practical purposes, judicially nullified from its enactment until the 1930s. When the Court in that decade started taking Equal Protection seriously, the Court began with the easiest cases - such as Missouri’s banning blacks from attending the University of Missouri Law School, while not even having a "separate but equal" law school for them. It was three decades later when, having constructed a solid foundation of Equal Protection cases, the Court took on the most incendiary racial issue of all, and struck down the many state laws which banned inter-racial marriage.

So too with the Second Amendment. From the Early Republic until the present, the Court has issued many opinions which recognize the Second Amendment as an individual right. Yet most of these opinions were in dicta. After the 1939 case of United States v. Miller, the Court stood idle while lower federal courts did the dirty work of nullifying the Second Amendment, by over-reading Miller to claim that only National Guardsmen are protected by the Amendment.

Today, that ugly chapter in the Court’s history is finished. Heller is the first step on what will be long journey. Today, the Court struck down the most freakish and extreme gun control law in the nation; only in D.C. was home self-defense with rifles and shotguns outlawed. Heller can be the beginning of a virtuous circle in which the political branches will strengthen Second Amendment rights (as in the 40 states which now allow all law-abiding, competent adults to obtain concealed handgun carry permits), and the courts will be increasingly willing to declare unconstitutional the ever-rarer laws which seriously infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

As the political center of gravity moves step by step in a pro-rights direction, gun control laws which today might seem (to most judges) to be constitutional will be viewed with increasing skepticism. The progress that the pro-Second Amendment movement has made in the last 15 years has been outstanding. As long as gun owners and other pro-Second Amendment citizens stay politically active, the next 15, 30, and 45 years can produce much more progress, and the role of the judiciary in protecting Second Amendment rights will continue to grow.

Dave Kopel is Research Director at the Independence Institute, in Golden, Colorado. He was one of three lawyers at the counsel table who assisted Alan Gura at the oral argument on March 18. His brief for the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association was cited four times in the Court's opinions.

Wait a minute! This was suppose to be a positive, uplifting and thoroughly reassuring note from one of the Key Speakers for the Second Amendment. He's telling us "As long as gun owners and other pro-Second Amendment citizens stay politically active, the next 15, 30, and 45 years can produce much more progress ...", and this is A Good Thing?

I don't want to wait and work for another 15, 30 or 45 months for the Federal Government to acknowledge that the Second Amendment means what it says. I don't have 45 years left in me; I want what I want, which is for the Socialists to quit screwing around with my life, and I want it now.

I'm tired of writing letters to the editor, to my congress-critters, and to total strangers. I don't want to write about the need to defend the Second Amendment here, I want to write about the high cost of reloading equipment and the funny things that happened at the last shooting match.

But Kopel tells me I have even another lifetime to fight for my rights? I'm tired of fighting for what was given to me by God, and what was guaranteed in 1791 with the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

This isn't as 'positive' as I had promised, is it?

I've got Good News for you, and I've got Bad News .

The Bad News is ... what Kopel said? That's the Good News .

Oh, wait a minute. Here's some good news.

Why is it good news?

It's good news, because the existing situation which the legal challenge addresses describes an Administrative Hell which is obviously designed to discourage firearms owners from meeting 'Reasonable Restrictions':

Under the gun law currently in place, firearms must be re-registered annually.

“Each time,” Gura said, “a tax is imposed, forms must be filled out, photographs submitted. A person who owns more than one gun will find herself or himself constantly in the process of registering each gun as it comes due for expiration. If registration is to be required, once is enough.”

He further noted that Chicago’s bizarre requirement that guns be registered before they are acquired often times makes registration impossible. The penalty for failure to comply with the registration scheme is that a gun not re-registered on time can never be registered again. Gura likened it to a requirement to dispose of a car if it is not re-registered on time with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

And you wondered why I called it "Administrative Hell".

Stumble It!

Just So You Know: Gun Rights & The Supremes

My Way News - Gun rights is biggest issue for court to decide

By MARK SHERMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - One momentous case down, another equally historic decision to go. The Supreme Court returns to the bench Monday with 17 cases still unresolved, including its first-ever comprehensive look at the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

The guns case - including Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns - is widely expected to be a victory for supporters of gun rights. Top officials of a national gun control organization said this week that they expect the handgun ban to be struck down, but they are hopeful other gun regulations will survive.

...

Last week, the court delivered the biggest opinion of the term to date with its ruling, sharply contested by the dissenting justices, that guarantees some constitutional rights to foreign terrorism detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 5-4 decision, which Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for his four more liberal colleagues, was the first case this term that broke along ideological lines.

The conservative-liberal split was seen frequently last term, including in cases that limited abortion rights, reined in voluntary school desegregation plans, made it harder to sue for pay discrimination and prodded the Bush administration to combat global warming by regulating tailpipe emissions. Kennedy was the only justice in the majority in all those cases, siding with conservatives in all but the global-warming dispute.

It's hardly unusual that the cases that take until late spring to resolve are the most contentious and most likely to produce narrow majorities.

The dispute over gun rights poses several important questions. Although the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, the court has never definitively said what it means to have a right to keep and bear arms. The justices also could indicate whether, even with a strong statement in support of gun rights, Washington's handgun ban and other gun control laws can be upheld.

Officials at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said recently that they expect Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban to fall but believe that background checks, limits on large-volume gun sales and prohibitions on certain categories of weapons can survive.

...

Retirements typically are announced at the end of the term, although it would be a huge surprise if anyone decided to retire this year with a presidential election looming and little prospect of a nominee being confirmed before then.

Five justices, though, will be at least 70 by the time the court reconvenes in October. Justice John Paul Stevens is 88, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75, Justice Antonin Scalia is 72, Kennedy will turn 72 in July and Justice Stephen Breyer will celebrate his 70th birthday in August.

In the meantime, what is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence saying?

Here's an article from their website dated June 18:

A column in today’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer by the board president of Washington Ceasefire, Ralph Fascitelli:

This month the U.S. Supreme Court addresses the Washington, D.C., gun ban and with it, the Second Amendment, which deals with the rights of an individual to own a gun.

It is a moot point for residents of Washington, where state law clearly guarantees one’s right to own a gun without the ambiguity of a “within a state militia” qualifying clause. The question here is not whether individuals have a right to own a gun but whether they have a good reason and what rules and regulations should be applied.

The ongoing rhetorical battle over the Second Amendment should not obscure the immense problem we face with gun violence in this state. Each week we lose about a dozen people to gun violence and dozens more are injured. Since 9/11 more people have died in Washington from guns than died on that fateful day. Gun violence is everybody’s problem and has been estimated to cost the state $2 billion annually or more than $1,000 per household in higher taxes, insurance charges and health care costs.

Washington Ceasefire believes we can reduce the almost 600 annual gun deaths in this state in half over the next decade with a few common-sense measures.

First, think twice before you have a gun in the home, and know the facts. Households with guns have a five times greater chance of a completed suicide; consider that on average we lose one person a day in this state to suicide with a gun.

Let's look at this statement in detail:

The question here is not whether individuals have a right to own a gun but whether they have a good reason and what rules and regulations should be applied.

The Brady Bunch concedes the "individual right to own a gun", but questions whether (residents of the State of Washington) "have a good reason".

In essence, Brady is appealing to your moral values to determine whether you should own a gun.

The implied assumption is that you should have a good reason before you make the decision to own a gun; and in the same breath, the suggest that " ...rules and regulations should be applied."

So, even if you think you have a good reason to own a gun, Brady wants to impose rules and regulations which would limit your access to a firearm. No justification is stated; even though they concede that that you have a right to own a firearm, they still want to regulate your access to firearms.

It's difficult to understand what they're saying, isn't it? Go back and read the last paragraph. Their emphasis is not on your right to own a firearm; their emphasis is on rules and regulations. It's not your rights; it's about their control over your rights.

They're big on "losses", they're more than willing to talk about "suicide" by firearm; but there isn't a word about how violence is prevented by private ownership of firearms.
________________________________________________

In the meantime, Brady has conceded DC v HELLER, but they are still looking forward to finding loopholes in their on-going effort to curtail your rights:

… “We’re expecting D.C. to lose the case,” Helmke said. “But this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side.”

The D.C. ban prohibits residents from keeping handguns inside their homes and requires that lawfully registered guns, such as shotguns, be locked and unloaded when kept at home.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. gun ban, the Brady Campaign is hoping that it will reorient gun control groups around more limited measures that will be harder to cast as infringements of the Second Amendment.

“The NRA [National Rifle Association] won’t have this fear factor,” Helmke said.

Brady Campaign Attorney Dennis Henigan said there are multiple gun control measures that would not run afoul of a Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. gun ban.

“Universal background checks don’t affect the right of self-defense in the home. Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home,” said Henigan. “Curbing large volume sales doesn’t affect self-defense in the home.”

What are they saying here?

... the Brady Campaign is hoping that it will reorient gun control groups around more limited measures that will be harder to cast as infringements of the Second Amendment.

Assuming that the Supreme Court rules that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, Brady is still looking for ways to get around the ruling of the Supreme Court.

That means they will continue to support circuitous means to restrict your ability to keep and bear arms. They will support microstamping ammunition ... which is unproven technology and single-source technology.

They will support Encoded Ammunition, which (like microstamping ammunition) is unproven and single-source, but also would impose such a huge financial and technological burden on the ammunition manufacturing industry as to price ammunition beyond the means of most citizens, and cause the manufacturers to close their doors because they are unable to meet the unreasonable requirements implied.

They will lobby for restrictions on the number of firearms you can buy every month (not every year ... so if you go to one gun show a year and find two guns you want, you can't buy them both.)

They will lobby for universal background checks: we already have background checks when buying from a dealer, but their proposal will regulate transfer of firearms within a family; between friends; and any other non-dealer negotiations.

They would identify 'super dangerous class of weapons' (such as the AR, the Evil Black Rifle).

In short, there are any number of schemes they can use to restrict your right to keep and bear arms.

Since they have already conceded your right to protect your home and your family, they will now go after the WAY in which you choose to provide such protection.

They'll fight you every step along the way to a true acknowledgment of firearms freedom.

You can ask: "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"

They understand it, all right. But they have their own private agenda, and they will not concede a single step.

They think they're right, and you are stupid and misinformed.

What are you going to do about it?

Stumble It!

Bowling for Columbine - The Truth!

David T. Hardy, back in 2003 (right after Michael Moore won the Academy Award for Best Documentary for "Bowling for Columbine"), posted a detailed refutation of the concepts presented in the film. The article is titled "The Truth About Bowling".

By "a detailed refutation", we mean he fisked the crap out of it. That's a big job, because if Hardy is to be believed there was more crap than substance.

The link is offered here FYI, in case you ever want to explore the veracity of Michael Moore's assertions about Firearms Ownership. In truth, it has very little to do with the Columbine Massacre, and even less about the Second Amendment (except as a vitriolic attack, unsupported by the facts, and as an example of Yellow Journalism, 2002 style.)

The most interesting thing about this subject is that a "documentary" must specifically be "Non-Fiction".

In fact, the awards ceremony was when Moore took the opportunity to give his infamous "Shame on You, Mister Bush" speech"

"I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to--they're here in solidarity with me because we like non-fiction. We like non-fiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts, we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up," said Moore. The audience half-booed, half-cheered his angry words.

After Moore left the stage, host Steve Martin joked, "The Teamsters are helping him into the trunk of his limo."

Given that Moore's expert editing of interviews and statements has patently encouraged the viewer to misunderstand the material presented, it is difficult if not impossible to conclude that his personal interpretation of history can be construed as anything but fiction.

Some of the independent critical comments about this film are summarized here:

There are two ways to look at Bowling for Columbine. It is a great piece of entertainment, and only a mediocre serious examination of a real issue. ...

In going about proving his point, Moore develops a scattershot approach at looking for causality. It eventually boils down to a culture of fear, perpetuated by the media and government. Stations televise each bit of news of murder and mayhem because it delivers ratings. It's a long trip to get here, and because of the way that Moore works, it's never that convincing. Instead of presenting a well-developed set of arguments, Moore opts to himself pander to his audience and go for what is most entertaining. In effect, he is creating his own brand of fear. Why interview experts when ambushing Dick Clark or interviewing random dumb people is so much more fun? Granted it makes for great cinema, but feels like tabloid journalism.

... [T]here are ... parts of the film that show just how much of a media whore Moore can become. ... The most potent example of Moore at his best (worst) is when he brings two Columbine survivors with bullets still in their bodies to the Kmart corporate headquarters, asking for refunds on the bullets (they were bought at Kmart). He is extremely effective in using the media to get his point across, to the point of shaming this large corporation into submission. Yes, Moore is good at what he does, but at times there is little to separate the media he demonizes with the way he portrays his ideas. [emphasis added]

(See also Roger Ebert's analysis here.)

In short, Moore has indeed become a Media Whore, and never shows his colors more truly than in this "documentary". The sad part of the story is that, even today, there exist people who are all too willing to take his commercial efforts as fact, rather than media-managed fiction.

Stumble It!

Clayton Cramer Interview

David Codrea, at WAR ON GUNS, interviewed Clayton Cramer (see post for credentials) about his run for Idaho State Senate in District 23.

After the online interview was completed, Codrea threw it open to comments and questions from the readers for about two hours.

I respect Cramer's judgment, and while his position statements involve more than the Second Amendment, it's significant to note that he helped prepare the case for the Respondent (Heller) in the current Heller v. DC case. Thus, his opinions are significant in the national debate.

Here are two exchanges which I found to be of national significance:

(Q) "Based on your work with Academics for the Second Amendment and the insights that must have given you, what are your thoughts on the probable outcome for Heller?"

(A) Just about everyone who worked on the case believes that we are going to win, at least 5-4, perhaps 6-3. The nature of the win, however, is where there is some question.

In spite of Chief Justice Roberts pointing out that the differing standards of review are not part of the Constitution, what we may get is less than we want--but more than we have.

The decision might be what lawyers call a categorical protection--that "shall not be infringed" really means what it says, and as long as the person isn't in a prohibited class, federal gun laws that infringe are unconstitutional. This would be such a dramatic win that I don't expect it. It would demolish too much of the current federal code on gun regulation.

The Court might decide that gun laws are subject to "strict scrutiny." This means that for a law to survive Second Amendment challenge it would have to serve a compelling governmental purpose; be narrowly tailored to serve that purpose; and not be overbroad (meaning that if it is supposed disarm felons, it can't disarm non-felons). This is a likely outcome, as far as I am concerned.

The Court might apply the "heightened scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny" standard. In this case, a law has to have some rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. This might mean that the Court strikes down the law, or it might send the case back down for trial to see if there's a plausible case for the handgun ban meeting this standard. This wouldn't be a complete win, but it would at least force governments to justify gun regulations--and that would enable us to put the social science evidence into play. That would at least stop some gun control laws. I consider this a possible, although not likely result.

The lowest standard of review is "rational basis." Here, the burden of proof is essentially on challengers to prove that the gun control law was passed for no good reason at all, but simply reflected ignorance or prejudice. I don't expect this result.

and ...

(Q) "Clayton, in a previous comment, those not loyal to the U.S. do not have a 2A right. How does one remain loyal to the United States of America, while using the 2A to overthrow a tyrannical United States government?"

(A) Loyal to the Constitution, or loyal to the government? There's a reason that our military swears allegiance to the Constitution, not the President, or Congress.

Realistically, if we reach the point where armed revolution makes sense, I rather doubt that anyone on the other side is going to be particularly concerned about fine points of law.

I would also point out that revolutions against the government are ugly, and often more destructive of liberty than the government that was there before. I wrote this article for Shotgun News in 2002: http://www.claytoncramer.com/RightsAndRevolution.PDF. Anyone that speaks too glibly about armed revolution against our government should read it, and think long and hard about the points that I make there

You should, of course, go read the whole thing.

Stumble It!

"New Constitutional Right"?

Kevin, over at The Smallest Minority, posted a brilliant argument in favor of the Second Amendment as an Individual Right.

This was over a week ago, and I am chagrined that I didn't actually read it earlier. I've obviously been too busy Having A Life, which is Death For A Blogger.

Go read the article here (it's not Geek Length) and tell me you don't find his thesis convincing.

Stumble It!

If it can happen to me, it can happen to anybody

NRA & Katrina
There are so many titles I could have put on this article.

These are the stories of New Orleans Firearms confiscations, and while I am disinclined generally to tout the NRA ... sometimes, you need a national organization to help fight for your civil rights.

In the enduring aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we are still seeing the reciprocations of illegal firearms confiscations in New Orleans ... years ago.

Although some legislation has resulted from the illegal firearms confiscations in New Orleans, we are left with the images and New Orleans.

Never again.

Stumble It!

College Students on the Second Amendment

I love college students!

As some of you may know, I work on a college campus and, under the circumstances, I find many situation in Campus Life which I deplore.

Among these are the distressing tendencies of college students to:

• clutter parking lots in the near vicinity of dormitories with discarded beer cartons and broken beer bottles;
• complain vociferously that "there are not enough parking spaces!";
• ride bicycles too fast and with no apprehension of the general Rules of the Road - bicyclists typically consider that whatever rules (pedestrian vs vehicular traffic) provides them the best advantage, that's the rule they rely upon.

I've been guilty of all these ego-centric attitudes when I was a student, so please understand that this merely represents the maundering of a cranky old man, but not a sincere criticism.

But this week, in response to DC vs HELLER, I was delighted to find that College Times recently presented an article which reminded me why college students are so enjoyable.

The original article merely presented a summary of the DC v HELLER controversy. I thought it was well-presented, concise and (if you will excuse the expression) 'balanced'.

(This was not the first time that College Times discussed the Second Amendment & 'Right to Carry' issues... c/f "The Facts behind Gun Control need to be cleared"; August 7, 2007, re: Virginia Tech and CCW.)

This current (March 20, 2008) article ("Constitution fully maintains the right to own a handgun") article only reports on the current DC v HELLER issues, in reference to the Supreme Court case.

Go there and read the commentary, as well as the comments.)

The proposition of this article seems to be that the 2nd Amendment is an "Individual Right", rather than a "Collective Right" applicable to formal Militias, such as the National guard. (There's a Leap of Faith involved here.)

While there seems to be a consensus in the comments, there is not unanimity of opinion. We should pay special attention to the(few) dissenting voices here.

I would lik